Macchars don’t wear sweaters

Pain, sear my soul!

Skewer it!

Lay it bare!

On hissing crimson-coals!

Shake it!

Wake it!

Make it!

Resist! Return!

Not Run (in flight)!

But Turn (and fight)!

Taunt it!

Stoke it!

Burn it!

Till finally,

the affirming rebel force,

rises from the last vital vestiges,

and gathers me whole.

Having long been interested in the politics of the middle east, I just finished reading a history of the middle east. With a new conquest or dynasty every sentence it was nearly impossible to keep up and retain much of what I read. It did however help me form a more accurate, although impressionistic view of that part of the world. 

One impression I left with was the futility of of revolution, and the difficulty of introducing real change in a society. The middle east’s story seems to be a long series of revolutions and counter revolutions – socialist, religious, pan-arabic, but they seem to all end up as tyrannies.

To be continued… 

Oliver Stone’s “Savages” is a love story. A story of Chon’s love for O (the rather abruptly named lead lady). And O’s love for Ben. And Ben’s love for Chon. Those of us not introduced to the joys of the movie yet, will immediately recognize it as a love triangle, especially those raised on Bollywood fare (like me). Chon’s beloved O likely fell for Ben, Chon’s best friend, while Chon was out serving in Iraq – we speculate. Or Chon secretly loved O, but stepped back when he saw the flowering of the love of O and Ben, his brother.

Wrong.

Savages is not your usual love triangle. Love in Savages is triangular, and simultaneous. Chon loves O loves Ben – all at the same time. It is about a redefinition of traditional relationships. Those of us used to the symmetry of 2 in a relationship will certainly protest. 3 way relationship? There must certainly be catfights, and punchups, and jealousy, and drama! Wrong again. It is a happy relationship of 3. Some of us would still try to reduce it to its physical aspects. That again would be false, because this relationship involves emotion, companionship, and a willingness to make the supreme sacrifice – the usual charter of relationships. There is drama, but in the backdrop. A plot of gangs, drugs and kidnapping forms the backdrop against which this relationship of 3 plays out. But to me the interesting part was the very idea.

Oliver Stone is certainly no shrinking violet when it comes to taking on bold themes. Natural Born Killers is one prime example. The movie is perhaps a reflection of society, where relationships are morphing. Such liaisons are still likely quite at the periphery, but Oliver Stone is not one shy of provoking.

For the life of me, I couldn’t find where I had read the following concept of Jung, though i am relatively certain it is Jung authored. The concepts are that of “expansion of personality” and “contraction of personality”. It sheds some light on the oft used cliche of “be yourself”. When we think of “the real me”, we prefer to see ourselves in the situations in which we thrive, while it is equally true that we are still our own person when in situations we recoil from. When our personality is “expanded” we assimilate contents of our environments into “me”. Everything that happens around us is a part of “me”, and reinforces our sense of “me”. On the other hand, when our personality is contracted, we tend to define ourselves in exclusion. Things in the environment threatens our sense of “me”, and we define ourselves in negative terms as a contrast. When you have a self esteem problem, the latter seems to be a strong force.

I am currently reading “Culture and Imperialism” by Edward Said, about how culture – literature and art – create the context for imperialist practices. Said, in my reading, sees culture’s support for imperialism not so much a self conscious propaganda exercise, but a deep rooted and even subconscious bias that determines how the world is perceived. Hollywood is undoubtedly one of the main cultural forces that support american global practices. However, sometimes it seems to me to be blatant propaganda. For example, today i saw Contagion, which was very good by movie standards. The movie depicted the possibility of the world overrun by a highly infectious virus. But even in dealing with such a general subject, with critically acclaimed actors, the political messages seemed to me to be more than obvious, in the following ways:

– The virus originated in China (one might say that even in the real world, China is the most likely place for such a virus to be born)

– America created the antivirus. Once again america saves the world (again it might be said that america is most likely to create the vaccine)

– The government is the one most dedicatedly and sincerely looking to find the antivirus, while people who are off the grid, like bloggers, are trying to exploit the credulity of people

– The chinese  government refuses to make any exceptions and fools the villagers who are desperately trying to get vaccines

– The american government makes exceptions on human grounds